Tank Hatches

[Ronin]

Thought I might tap into some of the actual military knowledge here. You see in the movies guys ripping open tank hatches and tossing in a frag. I got to believe in real life, even with a crowbar that it would be damn near impossible, with the hatch secured. Am I correct?

[headquarters]

they can be locked from the inside by a manual bolt in most cases - at least the few hatches I have had hands on experience with.

Even with tools you would have a hard time /use a lot of time popping the hatch.

Of course - careless mechie types and armoured bullywagon types can forget the lock in their eagerness to run over yet another enemy combatant on foot. I suppose its possible then to rip it open and throw the frag inside.

[dragoon500ly]

It is called a combat lock. In its simplest form it is a piece of metal that is moved into position to physically block the movement of the latch, eg the
M-113's rear ramp hatch lock. The upper grill doors on a M-48/M-60 are combat locked with a simple one-inch bolt that is screwed in.

On a tank you have to squeeze a locking lever to unlock and then rotate the physical lock to undo the hatch. In addition, most tank hatches do not have an external handle to pull open, the sole exception being the loader's hatch, which is the normal means of entry into a tank.

On older tanks, such as the M48/M60-series, the loader's hatch has a mount for a periscope to be mounted. If the hatch is locked from the inside and the periscope is not mounted, a hammer can be used to pop the 'scope cover open and then someone can reach in operate the latch.

As for the Hollywood staple of someone pulling the hatch open to chuck a grenade in....IRL our hero would be busy trying to stuff everything back in after the self-inflected hernia.

But there is a way to get a grenade into the turret. Tanks, when "buttoned up" have a serious lack of close in vision. Tank commanders are normally trained to ride with their hatch open and their head sticking out so that they can better see what is going on around them. A couple of infantrymen in the right spot can shoot the TC and then throw a grenade into his hatch. But what do you do if the TC is buttoned up?

The best answer, is to use one of the various man-portable rocket launchers, LAAWs, Vipers, Carl Gustav, RPGs etc, to get a shot into a vulnerable spot, prime spots would be the track, the rear of the tank hull (engine shot), or if you are above the tank, a round into one of the hatches. If you lack a antiarmor weapon, a satchel charge would be the next best choice. Wedging one of these in the gap between the turret and the hull will distort or even lift the turret right off of its turret ring, jamming the turret at the very least and maybe, getting onboard ammo to explode (before trying this in IRL, please get the maximum amount of insurance and list me as your beneficiary!). Tankers, needless to say are very watchful for anyone carrying a satchel charge.

Another old stand by is to use a flame weapon such as a Molotov Cocktail or even a flamethrower. This might have worked in WWII, but modern tanks are designed with run-off points to drain the flaming material away from the tank. When I was at Fort Knox, part of the officer's training course included a demonstration where we dropped a couple of Molotov's onto the back deck of a M-60A1....it was an utter waste of time and fuel.

Hope this helps!

[Ronin]

Interesting, thanks.
Had a thought about the molotovs. I though part of the reasoning of using them was that the smoke and burning fuel, chokes out the motor. Depriving it of oxygen. Causing it to stall out. Effectively a mobility kill. Does it not work that way at all? Another thought. I could seen that maybe working on a diesel. But what about the turbine engines, like the Abrams uses. They suck a lot of air I would imagine. So would that make it better or worse? Assuming it works like that at all.

[dragoon500ly]

Its more a matter of scale than anything else. In its classic form, a Molotov is a glass container containing, roughly, a liter of gas/oil mix. On its own, its not enough to kill the engine or crew. Like I mentioned earlier, modern tank designs do take into account the use of a Molotov and run-off points are provided. Tank crews are also trained to exit the area and get away from the fire.

Portable flamethrowers use a mix that tends to stick to things. But again, the design helps protect from the fire.

Best choice would be an attack aircraft that dumps a load of naplam on the tank. Drop enough and you will get the effects you are looking for, but in today's military, its a wasteful use of a combat aircraft to kill a single tank by that means. A Maverick missile, a Rockeye cluster bomb or even Copperhead or 155mm HE would be a more efficient choice.

The air intake on the Abrams is protected by two things, the large size of the turret helps shield the air intake from a direct hit and the intake has three pieces of armor that are angled slightly in and 'lipped" to drain towards a run-off point. Tests were run at Fort Knox and Aberdeen Proving Grounds during the developmental workup and the flame weapons used had little effect.

The primary purpose of any flame weapon is more mental than it is physical. Flame scares the bejesus out of any one, especially when you see someone deliberately trying to burn you. It is this very instinctive fear that has lead to the near absence of flame throwers on the modern battlefield. The reaction of the enemy to pour as much fire as possible at the operator. A Marine Corps study conducted after WWII confirmed that the most hazardous position in the Corps was a flamethrower operator in a island assault, his expected life span was measured in minutes.

[Ronin]

Very interesting. Thank you for the informative posts

[LBraden]

Well, there was that case of the disabled Challenger II, if I recall it ended up being hit by 5 RPG-7's, one "Heavy" man portable AT missile, multiple calibre round hits and the only injury was the loaders hand during egress of the tank after the rest of the platoon arrived.